Marine Shot Unarmed Civilians

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

Hamas has said time and again it would never recognize Israel. They, and affiliates, are not simply after Gaza and etc. This is a matter of religion to them. Israel is occupying Palestinian land by it’s very existence.

You’re not tackling the question, and assuming Hamas will be nice because there’s a multinational occupier policing things. If I’m right, and Hamas and affiliates continue to commit terroristic acts against Israel, what would the coalition forces do? What would their responsibility be? Would they pursue and engage?

To be clear, by right of return for Jews, I meant for Jews to be be able to return to Arab lands, receive their property, and count on protection by the government.

Sometimes, when discussing the right of return for Palestinians, the Arabs forget that they too are responsible for Jewish refugees fleeing their homes.

[quote]
Turn over the rest of the occupied land to the Palestinians. Then Arabs can feel free to help rebuild a peaceful Palestine. That is, if Hamas will let them.

That’s essentially my view. I think we’re on the same page, if not perhaps on the exact same paragraph.

Now, try saying “Mighty Muslim Martyr Mouse” ten times fast.[/quote]

Well, we sort of are in some ways. But I think we have a vastly different opinion on what Hamas is, and what the realities are. Oh, and I’d let the Jews keep Jerusalem.

162

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

One of the shortcomings of the present US campaign in Iraq is that as much as we assure the Iraqis and the rest of the world that we are neither invading nor occupying their country, the Iraqis feel invaded and occupied.

If the coalition does its job correctly, it will not be an occupying force in name or in fact. For one thing, an occupying force doesn’t leave when it is asked to. This coalition, probably also comprising civilian civil engineers, agricultural planners and other advisors, is there at the behest of the nation itself, with clearly stated objectives, timelines and budgets, and must leave when its work is done, or when it is deemed no longer necessary by the government of that nation.

I fear the same fate would befall these people as the ones who tried to rebuild Iraq. They would be killed, captured and beheaded in an effort to force their host countries to withdraw aid and support for the coalition.

and even if the majority of these coalition troops are Islamic, the all mighty al-qaeda will determine they are not muslim enough or following the orders of infidels and attack them.

Before your plan could take place, a real “war on terror” ie war against wahabbis or al-qaeda must take place. We must tell or force Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to tone down their hate rhetoric before this plan would hypothetically have a chance to succeed.

Now any ideas how to do that?

163

[quote]lixy wrote:

Like I said, my post was supposed to be a joke.[/quote]

Rest assured Lixy - it was.

164

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And if these coalition troops are deployed, Jerusalem wrestled from the Israels, and Palestine realized, what then? What about Hamas?

What about them? “Hamas” is an acronym meaning “The Islamic Resistance Movement.” They are resisting Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. When there are no longer any Israelis in the Palestinian lands for them to resist, they will no longer be necessary, at least in their present form. Neither, one hopes, will suicide bombers, Kassam rockets and Mighty Muslim Martyr Mouse cartoon shows.
[/quote]

I think this is wishful thinking.

They would continue to murder moderate Muslims as well as Israelis in an attempt to keep power.

If Israel ceased to exist and all the Jews moved to Idaho Hamas would still cause trouble for decades.

165

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And if these coalition troops are deployed, Jerusalem wrestled from the Israels, and Palestine realized, what then? What about Hamas?

What about them? “Hamas” is an acronym meaning “The Islamic Resistance Movement.” They are resisting Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. When there are no longer any Israelis in the Palestinian lands for them to resist, they will no longer be necessary, at least in their present form. Neither, one hopes, will suicide bombers, Kassam rockets and Mighty Muslim Martyr Mouse cartoon shows.

I think this is wishful thinking.

They would continue to murder moderate Muslims as well as Israelis in an attempt to keep power.

If Israel ceased to exist and all the Jews moved to Idaho Hamas would still cause trouble for decades. [/quote]

As evidenced by the Fatah/Hamas Muslim on Muslim aggression. There was nothing going on with Israel for a while so they decided to fight amoungst themselves.
Maybe it will thin out the herd a bit.

166

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And if these coalition troops are deployed, Jerusalem wrestled from the Israels, and Palestine realized, what then? What about Hamas?

What about them? “Hamas” is an acronym meaning “The Islamic Resistance Movement.” They are resisting Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. When there are no longer any Israelis in the Palestinian lands for them to resist, they will no longer be necessary, at least in their present form. Neither, one hopes, will suicide bombers, Kassam rockets and Mighty Muslim Martyr Mouse cartoon shows.

I think this is wishful thinking.

They would continue to murder moderate Muslims as well as Israelis in an attempt to keep power.

If Israel ceased to exist and all the Jews moved to Idaho Hamas would still cause trouble for decades.

As evidenced by the Fatah/Hamas Muslim on Muslim aggression. There was nothing going on with Israel for a while so they decided to fight amoungst themselves.
Maybe it will thin out the herd a bit.[/quote]

While finding time to fire rockets into Israel. Which now Israel is responding to.

How in the hell is Israel supposed to believe the Palestinians can police against die hard anti-Israel militants?
The Palestinians have been their own greatest enemy in this conflict.

167

[quote]Sloth wrote:

As evidenced by the Fatah/Hamas Muslim on Muslim aggression. There was nothing going on with Israel for a while so they decided to fight amoungst themselves.
Maybe it will thin out the herd a bit.

While finding time to fire rockets into Israel. Which now Israel is responding to.

How in the hell is Israel supposed to believe the Palestinians can police against die hard anti-Israel militants?
The Palestinians have been their own greatest enemy in this conflict. [/quote]

Israel shouldn’t because the Palestinians won’t. They have shown no desire what so ever to live peacefully amoungst themselves or Israel. They don’t want peace in the Holy Land, they want a piece of it. Even if Israel was blown off the map, they’d probably still fight each other.

168

Speaking of Palestinians, what do you all think about the current struggle going on in Lebanon. The Lebanese govt. is attacking a Palestinian refugee center to wipe out an Al Qaeda influenced militia there. The PlO is also backing this action.

A few questions

  1. Do you think this Lebanese Palestinian Al-qaeda group is now being oppressed, and does that give them the right to strike back? Would it be right if they did, or do you agree that these scum should be exterminated.

  2. Will the attack on the Lebanese Al-Qaeda create more Lebanese Al-Qaeda as the US is allegedly doing in Iraq?

  3. What will the outcome of this attack be. Do you think it will settle, or end anything or just create more chaos in the region?

Any other thoughts on this?

169

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

  1. Do you think this Lebanese Palestinian Al-qaeda group is now being oppressed, and does that give them the right to strike back? Would it be right if they did, or do you agree that these scum should be exterminated. [/quote]

You can’t prove that the group is in any way linked to Al-Qaeda.

I’m going to blame the presence of Palestinian refugee in Lebanon on…well, you guessed it.

Again, in my opinion, the Lebanese just threw in the unsubstantiated Al-Qaeda tie to justify all the violence. That argument flies so well with the West.

The analogy to the US in Iraq is very flawed, because the Islamists in Lebanon directly threaten the welfare of the Lebanese people. Iraq has never been a threat to the US. For God’s sake, it’s half a world away from America.

Lebanon was screwed from day one. Just like Kuwait, it’s an artificial country created by the imperial powers of the time. It’s proximity to Israel is the catalyst though. Had the Palestinians not been kicked out by Israel, I’m sure Lebanon would be a lot nicer. The current civil war in Lebanon is skirmishes compared to what it has endured in the past.

I am pessimistic when it comes to the future of that country. It’s not going to get better as long as the Palestinians don’t have a viable state.

170

Well, look like the Lebanese security forces handled some business for Germany amongst the fighting.

“A security official said government forces found the bodies of 10 Islamists, including Saddam Hajj Dib who was wanted over a plot to blow up trains in Germany last July, in the building stormed on Sunday.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070521/ts_afp/lebanonunrest

171

All counntries are artificial countries.

172

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:

  1. Do you think this Lebanese Palestinian Al-qaeda group is now being oppressed, and does that give them the right to strike back? Would it be right if they did, or do you agree that these scum should be exterminated.

Lixy said:
You can’t prove that the group is in any way linked to Al-Qaeda.

I’m going to blame the presence of Palestinian refugee in Lebanon on…well, you guessed it.

Gkhan says:
Israel, predictable.

But even the PLO want these guys destroyed.

  1. Will the attack on the Lebanese Al-Qaeda create more Lebanese Al-Qaeda as the US is allegedly doing in Iraq?

Lixy said:
Again, in my opinion, the Lebanese just threw in the unsubstantiated Al-Qaeda tie to justify all the violence. That argument flies so well with the West.

The analogy to the US in Iraq is very flawed, because the Islamists in Lebanon directly threaten the welfare of the Lebanese people. Iraq has never been a threat to the US. For God’s sake, it’s half a world away from America.

Gkhan says:
Al-Qaeda were a threat to us, they attacked us directly.

In your other posts, you claim that there were no al-qaeda in Iraq until the US invaded and that the war is creating more terrorists. I think the al-qaeda in Iraq are a threat to the US regardless of how they were created. If the US pulls out, what’s stopping them from attacking us 9-11 style here?

Why would you think if the Lebanese army attacked these elements in a camp, it would not attract others from the outside the same way you claim the Iraq war is doing. They already caught some Saudi foreign fighters in Lebanon last time I checked, and killed a Islamist wanted in Germany (as already mentioned…)

  1. What will the outcome of this attack be. Do you think it will settle, or end anything or just create more chaos in the region?

Lixy said:
Lebanon was screwed from day one. Just like Kuwait, it’s an artificial country created by the imperial powers of the time. It’s proximity to Israel is the catalyst though. Had the Palestinians not been kicked out by Israel, I’m sure Lebanon would be a lot nicer. The current civil war in Lebanon is skirmishes compared to what it has endured in the past.

Gkhan says:
True, but the Palestinians are only one part of the problem, the others being the Druse, Hezbollah, the Christians, and the Syrians.

Lixy said:
I am pessimistic when it comes to the future of that country. It’s not going to get better as long as the Palestinians don’t have a viable state.[/quote]

Gkhan says:
I think the destruction of Islamist Wahabbis is a cool thing whether it is done in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Lebanon or Somalia. Keep those bastards on the run.

173

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Gkhan says:
I think the destruction of Islamist Wahabbis is a cool thing whether it is done in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Lebanon or Somalia. Keep those bastards on the run.
[/quote]

Agreed.

174

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Israel, predictable. [/quote]

Would Lebanon have had a civil war if Israel wasn’t around to kick the Palestinians out of their lands? Would Hezbollah have been created without Israel invading Southern Lebanon? Would the Palestinians vote an extremist organization into office if it wasn’t for the hopeless situation in the occupied terrritories?

I think a little common sense answers those questions.

Duh! Seculars hate radical Islamists and vice-versa.

Can’t argue with that.

True enough. It doesn’t invalidate my argument that your analogy was very much flawed. Pre-2003 Iraq was in no way a threat to you. Of course, once you invaded, you created the safest haven terrorists could have ever dreamed of.

Think of it: A lot of destituted Sunnis who lost every privilege they had. A civilian population that has greatly suffered since the invasion. An occupied Muslim country that attracts “Jihadists” from all around the world.

Whether Iraq currently represents a threat to you or not is superceded by the fact that you shouldn’t have been there in the first place.

LEBANON BELONGS TO LEBANESE PEOPLE!

IRAQ DOES NOT BELONG TO AMERICANS!

Repeat that a couple of times and you might understand why your comparison is bad.

What the Lebanese government chooses to do inside Lebanon is nobody’s business. The US attacking Iraq is NOT the same thing. I don’t know anyone who’s willing to defend a FOREIGN group operating in Lebanon from the actions of a Lebanese government. I know a lot of people who wanted to defend the Iraqi people when you went invaded Iraq.

So…?

Those are exceptions. Contrast with the wave of “Jihadists” who came from all around the world to help Iraqis resist the US occupation. I met people who went to Iraq to resist the invasion. I never heard of anyone wanting to go defend a FOREIGN group messing with Lebanon’s sovereignty from the Lebanese army.

The Palestinian issue is the major problem and the one that’s triggered most of the violence in Lebanon.

Geez…do you have any idea how many of the “insurgency” are Al-Qaeda in Iraq? Experts on the ME say less than 10%.

Do you have any idea what Wahhabism is? It’s practically nonexistent outside of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar.

175

Genghis,

Read on about the response of the Arab league to the decision of the Lebanese army.

If Beirut went to the UN, how many people do you think would oppose them taking actions? Do you see millions in the streets of Madrid, Milan, Paris, and London protesting the crackdown? Do you see evidence being forged to justify the attack? Do you see anyone wanting to prosecute Siniora for crimes against humanity? Do you see hords of Arabs going to defend the “Palestinians in Lebanon”?

The Lebanese soldiers who die in this conflict are heroes who defended their country against a foreign aggression.

The American soldiers who die in Iraq are…dead.

You realize the distinction between the two cases now?

176

[quote]lixy wrote:

Would Lebanon have had a civil war if Israel wasn’t around to kick the Palestinians out of their lands? Would Hezbollah have been created without Israel invading Southern Lebanon? Would the Palestinians vote an extremist organization into office if it wasn’t for the hopeless situation in the occupied terrritories?
[/quote]
But, Israel is around, and looks like it will be for a long time to come. Further, would this have happened had it’s neighbors not sought to destroy Israel from day one? Where is their responsibility? Their culpability for using the Palestinians over the years?

Safe haven? Where they resided before were safe havens. They left the safe havens to join the battle, not to find refuge. Hence, why so many have been killed in Iraq by Iraqi forces and the US. Now, if we pull out before Iraq can reasonably defend itself, it will become a safe haven.

Hogwash. If it’s a threat to us now, than it’s a threat.

Because, unlike Iraq, Lebanon was pretty much a safe haven. It still is, regardless of current events. That is unless the government intends to continue to drive terrorists out in a sustained campaign. Doubt it will happen.

Psst, might want to remind a couple middle-eastern nations of that. Like, oh, I don’t know, Iran! There’s some intervention for ya.

As illustrated by the elected Government. The same one that has asked for the continued presence of US troops for the time being. Now, I don’t remember the elected Iraqi government asking foreign fighters to come and fight the US. Nor, have they requested Iran’s involvement in financing death squads and sectarian violence.

Hopefully, they realized they’d be nothing more than terrorists and decided not to.

I’m not sure where you get your figures, how they obtained them, and how reliable they are. What I do know is that Al-Qaeda doesn’t need to make up the bulk of the terrorist element in Iraq. They have Sunni buddies to help them with that. Of course, they kill the Sunnis who oppose their violence. Luckily, the real “legitimate resistance” is forming amongst the Sunnis, killing Al Qaeda and pals. These alliances are working with the Iraqi government and the US. Three cheers to them Lixy?

177

[quote]lixy wrote:

The Lebanese soldiers who die in this conflict are heroes who defended their country against a foreign aggression.

The American soldiers who die in Iraq are…dead.

You realize the distinction between the two cases now?[/quote]

No sir, the American soldiers are heroes. Your ‘legitimate resistance’ who die are…dead.

Please, drop the act. You don’t give a crap about what happens to Iraq. You want the US to lose, period. You want this so damn bad you’re willing to watch Iraq fall into a state of complete chaos. Chaos that would dwarf the violence we see now. The fact that the elected Government of Iraq, it’s military leaders, the private anti-sectarian/Al Qaeda alliances say this, means jack to you.

Those American soldiers, which you disparaged, die preventing market bombs, preventing the killing of ELECTED representatives, protecting the construction of schools, hospitals, ect.,

Those soldiers die fighting sectarian militias, Jihadists, and street thugs. They die while prepping Iraqi troops and police to one day take over security completely.

If you truly cared, if you weren’t so rabidly anti-us, and gave a damn about the Iraqis, you’d support the US and denounce the “resistance.”

Why would you do that? So schools, roads, hospitals, and utilities could get finished. And, so the Iraqi security forces could already to do the job alone. After all, if there wasn’t a “resistance,” the task would be that much easier.

Any ‘resistance,’ whose goal is solely the departure of US troops, is it’s own worst enemy. Further, they act outside of the elected government’s will, even though there is a political process in which they might attempt to meet their goals.

Now tell me, why aren’t you supporting the elected Iraqi government? Or, it’s security forces, the new citizen alliances, and therefore, US forces?

178

[quote]Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:

The Lebanese soldiers who die in this conflict are heroes who defended their country against a foreign aggression.

The American soldiers who die in Iraq are…dead.

You realize the distinction between the two cases now?

No sir, the American soldiers are heroes. Your ‘legitimate resistance’ who die are…dead.

Please, drop the act. You don’t give a crap about what happens to Iraq. You want the US to lose, period. You want this so damn bad, you’re willing to watch Iraq fall into a state chaos that would dwarf the violence we see now. The fact that the elected Government of Iraq, it’s military leaders, the private anti-sectarian/Al Qaeda alliances say this, means jack to you.

Those American soldiers, which you disparaged, die preventing market bombs, preventing the killing of ELECTED representatives, protecting the construction of schools, hospitals, ect.,

Those soldiers die fighting sectarian militias, Jihadists, and street thugs. They die while prepping Iraqi troops and police to one day take over security completely.

If you truly cared, if you weren’t so rabidly anti-us, and gave a damn about the Iraqis, you’d support the US and denounce the “resistance.”

Why would you do that? So the schools, roads, hospitals, and utilities could get finished. And, so the Iraqi security forces could already to do the job alone. After all, if there was no “resistance,” the task would be that much easier.

Any ‘resistance,’ whose goal is solely the departure of US troops, is it’s own worst enemy. Further, they act outside of the decision of the elected government, even though there is now political process to work through.

Now tell me, why aren’t you supporting the elected Iraqi government? Or, it’s security forces, the new citizen alliances, and therefore, US forces?[/quote]

I guess we can call this debate over.

179

You know what the most obvious argument against this notion of a “legitimate resistance” is? If they wanted to be fighters, and they wanted the US to leave, they’d have joined the Iraqi security forces and helped secure their nation faster. Doesn’t take a genius to realize this.

Yet, we’re supposed to believe that the very agents frustrating the ability to secure Iraq simply want US troops gone? All the while not realizing they’re prolonging the chaos, therefore, the Iraqi government’s need for US troops. They’re either incredibly stupid, or have a goal besides just chasing out US troops.

180

Wow, all this time Lixy was saying that the war was bringing Islamist Extremists to Iraq to fight the Americans. Now he says that number is only 10% of the insurrection??? You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth now. If the amount of foriegn fighers and religious extremists is a direct result of American actions in Iraq as you have been saying, how come their percentage is so low?

So we agree, these scum should be eliminated? That the Lebanese have the right to destroy them? What if they ask the US for aid, that would be wrong for them to help the Lebanese?